| Matter of Charle Chiedu E. (Chiedu E.) |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 06842 [87 AD3d 1140] |
| September 27, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Charle Chiedu E., Also Known as Charles E. HeartShare Human Services of New York, Respondent; Chiedu E., Respondent, et al., Respondent.Steven Banks, Attorney for the Child, Nonparty Appellant. |
—[*1] Wingate, Kearney & Cullen, LLP, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Richard J. Cea and George O'Loughlin ofcounsel), for petitioner-respondent. Anthony Augustus, Jamaica, N.Y., for respondent-respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights,the Attorney for the Child appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of theFamily Court, Queens County (Salinitro, J.), dated July 8, 2010, as, after a fact-finding hearing,in effect, denied that branch of the amended petition which was for a determination that theconsent of the biological father, Chiedu E., was not required for the child's adoption pursuant toDomestic Relations Law § 111 (1) (d).
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and on the facts,without costs or disbursements, and that branch of the amended petition which was to determinethat the consent of the biological father was not required for the child's adoption pursuant toDomestic Relations Law § 111 (1) (d) is granted.
The Family Court's determination that the consent of the biological father, Chiedu E., to theadoption of the subject child was required was not supported by the record before it (see Lehrv Robertson, 463 US 248, 262 [1983]; Matter of Robert O. v Russell K., 80 NY2d254, 262 [1992]; Matter of Raquel Marie X., 76 NY2d 387, 401 [1990], cert deniedsub nom. Robert C. v Miguel T., 498 US 984 [1990]; Matter of Joseph Kenneth B., 47 AD3d 809 [2008]; Matter of Baby Boy C., 13 AD3d619, 620-621 [2004]). The biological father failed to meet his burden of establishing that hemaintained substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child through the payment ofsupport and either regular visitation or other communication with the child (see DomesticRelations Law § 111 [1] [d]; Matter of Robert O. v Russell K., 80 NY2d at 264;Matter of Andrew Peter H. T., 64 NY2d 1090, 1091 [1985]; Matter of Marc Jaleel G. [Marc E.G.],74 AD3d 689, 690 [2010]; Matterof Jamize G., 40 AD3d 543, 544 [2007]; [*2]Matterof Jason Brian S., 303 AD2d 759, 760 [2003]; see also Matter of Vanessa Ann G.-L., 50 AD3d 1036, 1037-1038[2008]).
Accordingly, the Family Court should have granted that branch of the amended petitionwhich was for a determination that the consent of the biological father was not required for thechild's adoption pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 111 (1) (d).
In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the parties' remaining contentions. Angiolillo,J.P., Hall, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 28 Misc 3d 1107.]